You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

View Poll Results: How do you feel about gay marriage?

Voters

234. You may not vote on this poll

I feel it is wrong and should be banned.

5423.08%

I feel homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

The Gay Marriage Controversy

It's a huge story in the U.S. right now. As of now, it's up to the state, not the federal goverment, to certify same-sex unions. Dubya is trying his best to change this, though. He's now wanting to alter the Constitution of the United States of America by adding an amendment which will ban all same-sex marriages for good( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...3320_2004feb24 ).

So, I'm wondering how you all feel about this subject. Do you agree with Mr. Bush that same-sex unions are sinful and should be banned? Do you think that homosexual couples should have the right to be legally married, same as heterosexual couples? Or you're not sure? Let's have a little discussion.

I'm adding a map showing the status of same-sex marriage by state(Alaska is questionable):

i thought hawaii allowed same sex marriages...
personally i dont really care what other people do in their spare time as long as it doesnt hurt me or my friends/family and they dont try to push their beliefs on me.

I can't find that sinful, as I am not religious. Married and not married, anyway that doesn't change anything in the face of society, since nobody is going to forbid them to live together, hold hand, kiss or have sex together.

Then, I was wondering what is the legal status of a gay couple who would have got married in a country or state where gay marriage is legal in any place where it is not legal. If it is the same as with dual nationality, it is only recognised where it is legal. E.g. if an American becomes Japanese, he/she will have both nationalities in the US, but only the Japanese one in Japan (as Japan does not recognised dual nationality, but the US do). How does it work with US driver's licences ? As ages varies from state to state, is it ok for instance for a 15 year old to get a driver's licence in a state where the legal age is 15, then drive anywhere in the US, or can they only drive in the states that accept 15 year-olds to drive ? (don't have this issue in Europe as the legal age for driving is 18 everywhere, so I don't have a clue).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

Married and not married, anyway that doesn't change anything in the face of society, since nobody is going to forbid them to live together, hold hand, kiss or have sex together.

actually sodomy is illegal in some states...
as for honoring the marriage it varies, some states recognize gay marriages from other states though they dont allow them themselves while others dont. not sure about the drivers licenses though, but i think they will be honored, when my uncle was 15 he used the one he'd been issued in a state where it was too early for him to get one there with no problems.

well.....i still think that same sex marriages are to be legal...cause it is the human choice of who loves who and not jus being controlled by human laws,each person got the right to choose who they love and who they don't.Cause love can't be forced.And as long as the 2 truely loves each other,Y not?

A Matter Of Money As Much As Religion !!

Big business & government don't want to have to pay for benifits, lose tax money, and fight court battles over the legal issues involved. I think many of the people against it have money to lose somehow but claim it's a religious thing.Strickly opinion, no facts!

Let the freaking people marry whomever they love within reason *none of that minor bs*.

This isnt a freaking issue, and thats the reality of the situation. This shouldnt be having so much energy put in it. Rights shouldnt discriminate, and being a former supporter for Bush, I'd have to say that he is only doing this to regain support from his strongest redneck-....er....voters of the south.

All the powers that be have MORE VIABLE issues to handle. This is plain ridiculous. Ridiculous I say.

As corrupt as our system of govt is, there will not be an amendment that will forbid these types of unions. Even if it does come out, it will be annulled immediately.

Trust me. I'm not saying this just because its unconstitutional, and defies what we stand for as a free nation; I'm saying this because while we may be free and democratic, we are first and foremost, CAPITALISTS. With that said, once word gets out on how much money my hometown of San Francisco has made off this, the rest of the country will be itching to get in on the action. This 'issue' right now mean big bucks.

Summed it up pretty nicely, Winter. I also think all of this could be a ploy to get attention off other matters at hand, such as the whole Iraq situation. Let's take the people's minds off the issues that really matter...yeah...

I don't know why everyone is so upset. after all, in the start of his term, Bush did pushed or tried to push a program to incentivate marriage. Perhaps it worked too well? :)

It is a serious issue, but I think that nowadays, it only draws attention from the right wing Christians and the people that are directly affected. In the middle is a mass of (more or less informed) people that threads on the politically correct, don't care less and wonders what's the big fuss about.

Looks like everyone's already forgot another major issue that was raised by Janet Jackson's Tiet Offensive.

I think many of the people against it have money to lose somehow but claim it's a religious thing.Strickly opinion, no facts!

So what ? money has always been a valid argument in politics, but religious shouldn't be. You can't impose your religious views to all the nation (especially such a hybrid one as the American one). I think the French are right when they want a strict separation of religion and politics (the ban on headscarves at school is another problem...).

All the powers that be have MORE VIABLE issues to handle. This is plain ridiculous. Ridiculous I say.

Completely agree with you.

Trust me. I'm not saying this just because its unconstitutional, and defies what we stand for as a free nation; I'm saying this because while we may be free and democratic, we are first and foremost, CAPITALISTS.

Inserting a ban on gay marriage in the constitution is plain non-sense, especially when this one grant the citizens freedom of opinion, beliefs, expression, etc. I've nener heard of a constitution that forbids rights rather than grant them. Interesting new way towards tyranny.

First, I am in support of allowing gay people to marry if they wish. It doesn't bother me, in my view it doesn't cheapen the institution, nor endanger society. How can two adults who care and love each other be considered as bad?

That said - For the sake of discussion (remember, I don't endorse all these views, just want to keep it alive)

Why marriage? Couldn't there be other legal means to achieve the same protections/rights under the law? I hear one of the problems for gay couples is not being able to share insurance, medicare, medicade, taxes and the like because the law states these are for married people.

So what if everyone compromises by letting congress rewrite some laws to extend legal protections/benefits but stop short of demanding marriage? The right wingers would be happy because their ideals are met, gay couples gain legal protection/benefit for their relationship, and you can get rid of all this silly nonsense about gay marriage throwing open the door to polygamist/three men/animals and people.

It seems that everyone is fighting tooth and nail - marriage or bust. Is this really an issue for either side to go for broke on? At one end you will end up with discrimination in the constitution, and at the other more fire for the ideologues to feed political campaigns for decades to come. Either way divides the nation down two very ugly lines.

@Mandylion: This is just my opinion, but I really think they would like the ceremony, also. So, if we are to go by your idea, do we have a 'legal union' reciption for them? (Even though I can see ppl having probs w/that also.....)

IMHO: I don't see any problems whatsoever with two people in love who wish to marry. If those bible-belt people raise a stink over gay marriage destroying the so-called 'sanctity' of marriage, then why aren;t they pissed off as much about those reality shows like 'my big fat obnoixious fiance' and 'married by america'? I think those shows are the only things doing damage to marriage.

It seems that everyone is fighting tooth and nail - marriage or bust. Is this really an issue for either side to go for broke on? At one end you will end up with discrimination in the constitution, and at the other more fire for the ideologues to feed political campaigns for decades to come. Either way divides the nation down two very ugly lines.

Yeah, I agree politization of an issue is ultimately antithethical or irrevelant to matters of the heart. Unfortunately as with so many other areas gays and lesbians often seem to perpetuate the controversy by reducing the reasons for marriage to a question of legal rights, universal recognition, as a statement against discrimination/anti-Bush etc none of which of course are integral to the institution itself. It's much rarer to hear what should be the most fundamental motivations of giving children a stable family life or preserving the longevity of their own relationship.

Why marriage? Couldn't there be other legal means to achieve the same protections/rights under the law? I hear one of the problems for gay couples is not being able to share insurance, medicare, medicade, taxes and the like because the law states these are for married people.

Originally Posted by Kuro_Tsubasa69

@Mandylion: This is just my opinion, but I really think they would like the ceremony, also.

In laic Europe, (especially countries like the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands...), so many people have come to dislike the idea of getting married because of its association with religion and church ceremony, that the number of umarried people living and having children together is on the rise. I don't know in the US, but in Japan almsot 100% of parents are married, because the father would not be recognised otherwise.

In Europe, that's already a few decades that married and non married couples have the same legal status. France offers 3 possibilities to couples who want to live or have children together : cohabitation, "pacs" or marriage. The legal status of each is different, but in all cases the couple and their children are legally recognised. Couples in "pacs" can declare their revenue together and enjoy tax rebates after 3 years of "pacs", while married couples always declare together and cohabiting ones never do. The inheritence tax is also progressive, highest for cohabitation, then pacs (degressive with number of years spent together), then marriage (also degressive).

For property and debts, cohabiting couples are completely separate, those in "pacs" have common property for thing sthey bought together and must be solidary for everyday debts, while married couples always have common properties and debts, unless otherwise specified in a "contract" (prenuptial agreement).

Now more interestingly, in all 3 situations, couples can have a common social security, medicare, etc. Even better, it is possible for a foreigner either in "pacs" or cohabiting with a French person (so not married), to obtain French nationality after 5 years of living in France (same condition as for married couples in Japan). If they are married, then only 1 year is necessary (that is for France, as each EU country has different laws ; e.g. it is only 6 months in Belgium).

For work, couples in "pacs" and married ones have the same priorities for holidays/vacations. That is, they are allowed to ask to have their holiday/vacation at the same time as their partner, but it's a matter of company policy.

It is also possible for couples in pacs to adopt children, though only one person can officially do so, while both can if they are married. Cohabitating couples can't.

In case of separation, there are no formalities for cohabiting couples, but "pacsed" and married couples must declare it officially at a tribunal/court. The only difference is that if they were married, they can ask their ex-partner for financial help/support. But in both case, damages can be sought by either party.

Is there any similar system in the States ? Do cohabiting couples have any rights, and is there any equivalent to "pacs" ?

That would be a solution for gays, as they don't need to get married, but can enjoy almost the same rights as married couples, including adoption (not sure about France, but gay marriages and adoptions are legal in the Netherlands). That would satisfied both conservatives and gay couples. But I fear the Bush administration's IQ level is too low to take such decisions.

One last thing, in lots of EU countries, civil and religious marriages are clearly disctinct things. But that depends on the country. In France, Belgium, etc. the only legal way to get married is to sign at the townhall. Marriages made by a priest have no legal value. So if people want a religious marriage, they must get a civil one first. In countries like Italy, however, either way is acceptable. Japan is of course like France and many other Eu countries. How about the USA ? These "Las Vegas marriages" are only religious ones, aren't they ?

I suppose it's because marriage still has such a strong religious connotation in the US that it causes so much turmoil from religious activists and puritan politicians now. やはりアメリカはヨーロッパよりサウディアラビアに近い。

Does anyone remember the phrase "separate but equal"? I pray to God we won't do the same thing to homosexual people who's only crime is to want to be married to their significant other. I mean, damn.

Is there any similar system in the States ? Do cohabiting couples have any rights, and is there any equivalent to "pacs" ?

Well, there are several sorts of things like that in America. We call it a "Domestic Partnership Registry". My city became the first in the nation to allow it's citizens the right to vote on whether or not homosexual couples could be allowed domestic partnership, and we were the first in the nation to pass. Basically, you get all the same benefits as a married couple does.

However, I don't believe this to be enough.

That would be a solution for gays, as they don't need to get married, but can enjoy almost the same rights as married couples, including adoption (not sure about France, but gay marriages and adoptions are legal in the Netherlands). That would satisfied both conservatives and gay couples. But I fear the Bush administration's IQ level is too low to take such decisions.

This would be the "solution" for gays? Why does there need to be a "solution"? Why can't America just do the right thing and award equal rights to its citizens? How would this "satisfy" homosexual couples? The homosexual couples that I've talked to, and my homosexual friends don't believe this to be enough. Segregation didn't work before, remember?

Just the fact that you say "almost" the same rights gives me cause for alarm. "Almost" the same rights? Like homosexuals are "almost" citizens, right?

Homosexual people are just like every other citizen, but more importantly, they PAY TAXES. I'm sorry, but if I was homosexual and I was being denied my rights, I would stop paying taxes, and take it to the Supreme Court.

The whole "lets give them something with a differnt name but the same rights" Is a total bullshit deal.

IF they do that, say call it a civil union. Then on ALL forms and ALL media they need to refer to all relationships like it as civil unions. NO MORE MARRIAGE, On a form it will ask if you have a civil union not if you are married. The media will say people formed civil unions insted of they got married.

the US and australia have whats called a common law marriage, where if a couple has been living together for 12+ months then they can claim to be spouses, will work for citizenship in australia, not sure about the states though. in both cases claiming common law then separating still requires a legal divorce.

The whole "lets give them something with a differnt name but the same rights" Is a total bullshit deal.

IF they do that, say call it a civil union. Then on ALL forms and ALL media they need to refer to all relationships like it as civil unions. NO MORE MARRIAGE, On a form it will ask if you have a civil union not if you are married. The media will say people formed civil unions insted of they got married.

Actually, I didn't see it as a "bullshit" at all. As you might know, I am not Christian, nor even religious, so for me the idea of "marriage" as it is understood in Western cultures, is slightest disturbing. I am married to a Japanse, but only because marriage in Japan has a completely different meaning, more of a social duty towards the family, and has nothing religious (we had no ceremony either in a church/chapel nor in a temple/shrine). What is more, it is the only form of officially recognised relationship (no cohabitation or "pacs"). But if it were up to me to change things, there wouldn't be any marriages, but just civil unions. So when I was talking about such sort of union for gay, I was thinking of a better solution than marriage (given they aren't religious like me), as I would never have got married had it been tinted with religious connotation.

So if you are preaching "equality" (same system for everybody, regardless of their religious orientations), then I agree that marriage, as a religious and outdated institution, should disappear altogether of society, and let space for "customizable" officially recognised relationships.

The above post is exactly how I feel. I, also not being religious, would rather not have gotten married at all. In fact, I didn't want to get married when I did, and if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't be married. Yes, that's a bold statement and it is for very many reasons and it's a long, complicated story. Anyway...

The point is, though, that gay people simply want to be considered equal, and I believe they should have that right. If they wish to be married like their heterosexual counterparts, I think they should be able to. Not everyone is non-religious like me and there are still people who believe that marriage is necessary to seal the deal and make everything right. I don't deny that many might be doing it just to prove a point, though... ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ell_wedding_12 )

This hits close to home for me. There are several lesbians in my family(could it be genetic?) and also friends who have partners and some of them wish to be legally married to them. I know them and I know how they feel about each other, and I feel that if they want to be married to each other, then why shouldn't they be able to? They exhibit much more genuine, loving, and caring behavior toward each other than so many heterosexual couples I've known. Oh well...it's too personal for me, I guess...

So if you are preaching "equality" (same system for everybody, regardless of their religious orientations), then I agree that marriage, as a religious and outdated institution, should disappear altogether of society, and let space for "customizable" officially recognised relationships.

And why then should the majority give up any of their rights to "marriage" which already is "customizable" in the sense that religious ceremonies are not mandatory, when inclusion in the institution is precisely what gays and lesbians seem to be asking for? You could also argue I suppose on the other spectrum in the name of religious freedom that for a truly devout couple legal recognition in the form of a license, registration, etc should be irrelevant to their personal commitment which could even undermine their faith and a sacred ceremony alone ought to be passively endorsed/recognized by the state.